Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India decided an appeal by special leave filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an acquittal by the Allahabad High Court. The respondent-accused was charged with murder of his wife. The incident occurred on October 20, 1983, between 7 and 8 p.m. The accused came home, found his wife preparing food with dal, brought fish and asked her to prepare curry. When she explained she had prepared food for him, he suspected her fidelity, beat her, poured kerosene oil on her, set her on fire, and shut the door. Neighbours rescued her and took her to hospital. She made a dying declaration before an Executive Magistrate at about 9:30 a.m. on October 21, 1983, stating that her husband harassed her, poured kerosene, and set her on fire. A second dying declaration was recorded by the Sub-Inspector under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was consistent with the first. At trial, several prosecution witnesses turned hostile, but the Sessions Judge relied on the dying declarations and other consistent evidence, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt, reasoning that in the second dying declaration the two witnesses mentioned were not present at the time of recording and attested later, so the investigating officer had fabricated it. The Supreme Court examined the dying declarations and held that they were clear, categorical, and sufficient for conviction even excluding the hostile witnesses. The Court noted that the deceased specifically stated her husband put her in the room, poured kerosene, lit fire, and prevented her from coming out. The medical evidence corroborated the dying declarations. The Court reiterated that a truthful dying declaration is sufficient to support a conviction without further corroboration and need not be recorded in a question-and-answer format. It found the High Court's rejection of the dying declarations unjustified. The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal, restored the Sessions Court's conviction, and sentenced the respondent to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Sufficiency - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 161 and 164 - The Supreme Court examined two dying declarations, one recorded by an Executive Magistrate and another by a Sub-Inspector under Section 161 CrPC. The Court held that a dying declaration if found truthful is sufficient to base a conviction without further corroboration, and in this case the declarations were clear, categorical, and corroborated by medical evidence. The High Court's rejection of the declarations on the ground that witnesses attested later was unjustified. Held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was restored. B) Criminal Procedure - Recording of Dying Declaration - Question-Answer Format Not Mandatory - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - The respondent contended that the dying declaration was not recorded in question-and-answer form, but the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for a dying declaration to be recorded in that format. The doctor certified that the deceased was mentally fit to give the statement, and the Executive Magistrate's record was accepted. Held that the recording method did not affect its reliability. C) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Conviction can rest on dying declarations even if witnesses turn hostile - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 161 and 164 - Although prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the Sessions Judge believed the dying declarations and the Supreme Court upheld that approach, stating that even excluding hostile witness testimony, the dying declarations were sufficient to base a conviction. Held that hostile witnesses did not undermine the prosecution case where the dying declarations were credible and corroborated.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the two dying declarations and acquitting the respondent; and whether the dying declarations were sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and confirmed the Sessions Court's conviction. The respondent was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Law Points
- dying declaration if found truthful is sufficient to base a conviction without further corroboration
- medical evidence corroborates dying declaration
- dying declaration need not be recorded in question-and-answer format
- clear and categorical dying declaration can sustain conviction despite hostile witnesses
- High Court rejection of dying declaration without valid reasons is unjustified
